State v. Sanchez - Post-Sentence Plea Withdrawal Affirmed

Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Sanchez

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 1497
• Docket Number: 2025 CA 00134

• Judges: Gormley

• Opinion

• Authorities (15)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (34.6K)

• PDF

Syllabus

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a criminal defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas years after he was sentenced.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Sanchez, 2026-Ohio-1497.]

IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STARK COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 2025 CA 00134

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion & Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas
of Stark County, Case No. 2016CR0957
ANTHONY SANCHEZ,
Judgment: Affirmed
Defendant - Appellant
Date of Judgment: April 24, 2026

BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin, Robert G. Montgomery, and David M. Gormley, Judges

APPEARANCES: Kyle L. Stone (Stark County Prosecuting Attorney) & Kameisha J.
Johnson (Assistant Prosecuting Attorney), Canton, Ohio, for Plaintiff-Appellee; Anthony
Sanchez, Chillicothe, Ohio, briefed the case on his own behalf as Defendant-Appellant.

Gormley, J.

{¶1} Defendant Anthony Sanchez challenges a trial-court decision denying his

post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. For the reasons explained below, we

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Key Facts

{¶2} Sanchez was indicted in July 2016 on several felonies of the first, second,

and third degree. In December of that year — while represented by an attorney whom

Sanchez had hired in September 2016 — Sanchez pled guilty to the charges.

{¶3} At the plea-change hearing, Sanchez told the trial judge that his attorney

had met with him at the jail and that he — Sanchez — was satisfied with the quality of the

legal services that he had received from that attorney. The trial court accepted Sanchez’s

guilty pleas, and Sanchez was later sentenced to a lengthy prison term in the case.
{¶4} According to his own affidavit that Sanchez submitted with his August 2025

plea-withdrawal motion, he asked his trial attorney, soon after the sentencing hearing in

2017, to provide a copy of the case file to him. The exhibits attached to Sanchez’s motion

indicate that he did receive at least a portion of the attorney’s case file in July 2017.

{¶5} The August 2025 plea-withdrawal motion was not the first such motion filed

by Sanchez in the case. He filed a similar motion in March 2022. In that earlier motion,

Sanchez claimed that he had been surprised to learn only after the plea change that he

would be required to register as a sex offender (one of the charges was a rape charge), and

he alleged in his motion that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because his

trial attorney had failed to advise him about that registration requirement. Sanchez also

argued in his 2022 motion that his trial counsel had pressured him into signing the plea

agreement despite Sanchez’s assertion that he was innocent and wanted to go to trial. The

trial court denied Sanchez’s first motion in April 2022 after noting that Sanchez had in

fact been advised of the registration requirement at the plea-change hearing. We affirmed

the trial court’s decision in June 2023. See State v. Sanchez, 2023-Ohio-2042, ¶ 35 (5th

Dist.).

{¶6} In July 2023 Sanchez’s sister made a public-records request to the clerk of

the trial court and asked for a copy of all documents that had been filed in Sanchez’s case.

The sister apparently received in response to that request several documents labeled

“Discovery Receipt” that listed some items that had been sent by the prosecutor to

Sanchez’s trial attorney before Sanchez pled guilty.

{¶7} With those additional “Discovery Receipt” documents in hand, Sanchez —

according to his affidavit that accompanies his 2025 plea-withdrawal motion — sent
letters in May 2024 and July 2024 to his trial attorney asking to see copies of the

discovery-related items listed on those receipts.

{¶8} According to his own and other affidavits that Sanchez filed with the 2025

motion, his girlfriend in July or August of 2024 picked up 16 compact discs from

Sanchez’s trial attorney and transferred the information on them to a memory stick or

flash drive. A different attorney then sent the flash drive to Sanchez in September 2024.

{¶9} Sanchez filed his second motion to withdraw his guilty pleas in August 2025

and again — as he had in his 2022 motion — alleged that he had been denied the effective

assistance of counsel in 2016. This time, Sanchez claimed that his trial attorney had

withheld discovery documents from him before the plea change and had lied about the

strength of the State’s evidence in an effort to convince Sanchez to plead guilty. Sanchez

attached multiple affidavits from himself and from his sister and his girlfriend, and he

included, too, some of the discovery-related documents that he said he had seen for the

first time in September 2024 after he obtained what he now believes is his complete case

file from his trial counsel.

{¶10} After reviewing these items, the trial court denied Sanchez’s motion without

holding a hearing. Sanchez now appeals.

Standard of Review

{¶11} A Criminal Rule 32.1 plea-withdrawal motion is addressed to the sound

discretion of the trial court, and “the good faith, credibility and weight of the movant’s

assertions in support of the motion are matters to be resolved by that court.” State v.

Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264 (1977). We therefore review solely for an abuse of

discretion any trial-court decision denying a Criminal Rule 32.1 motion. State v.

Waterhouse, 2022-Ohio-655, ¶ 7 (5th Dist.). An abuse of discretion “implies that the
court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary[,] or unconscionable.” Blakemore v.

Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).

{¶12} Under Criminal Rule 32.1, a trial court may allow a defendant to withdraw

his or her guilty or no-contest plea after a sentence has been imposed, but only, the rule

says, when that outcome is necessary to correct a “manifest injustice.” A defendant who

seeks to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing bears the burden of establishing the

existence of that manifest injustice. Smith at 264.

{¶13} A manifest injustice “‘relates to some fundamental flaw in the proceedings’”

that results in “‘a miscarriage of justice or is inconsistent with the demands of due

process.’” State v. Leftwich, 2022-Ohio-1153, ¶ 13 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Eckley,

2017-Ohio-8455, ¶ 19 (5th Dist.). A post-sentence motion to withdraw “is allowable only

in extraordinary cases.” Smith at 264.

The Trial Court Did Not Err By Denying Sanchez’s Motion

{¶14} Sanchez faults the trial court for denying his motion, and he argues, too,

that the judge should have held a hearing on the motion before issuing any decision.

Sanchez’s Second Criminal Rule 32.1 Motion is Barred by the Claim-Preclusion
Doctrine Because He Could Have Raised His Arguments in His First Motion

{¶15} An ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim can be a proper basis for filing a

post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea if the defendant meets his or her burden

of demonstrating a manifest injustice. State v. Griffin, 2023-Ohio-4011, ¶ 17 (7th Dist.);

State v. Howard, 2019-Ohio-5357, ¶ 41 (2d Dist.).

{¶16} The doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, however, “bars successive

litigation of issues and events that were or could have been raised in the prior

proceedings.” State v. Spencer, 2010-Ohio-1667, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.). Ohio appellate courts
have applied that doctrine to bar successive Criminal Rule 32.1 motions when the second

motion asserts grounds for relief that were or could have been raised in the first motion.

Id. at ¶ 12-13; State v. McLeod, 2004-Ohio-6199, ¶ 12 (5th Dist.); State v. Brown, 2004-

Ohio-6421, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.) (“if a Crim.R. 32.1 motion asserts grounds for relief that were

or should have been asserted in a previous Crim.R. 32.1 motion, res judicata applies and

the second Crim.R. 32.1 motion will be denied”); State v. Owens, 2011-Ohio-1175, ¶ 30

(7th Dist.) (“The doctrine of res judicata applies to successive post-sentence motions to

withdraw a plea under Crim.R. 32.1”). “Res judicata bars raising ‘piecemeal claims’ in a

successive motion to withdraw a guilty plea that could have been raised, but were not, in

the first motion to withdraw a guilty plea.” State v. Colvin, 2016-Ohio-5644, ¶ 47 (7th

Dist.).

{¶17} Sanchez first challenged the validity of his 2016 guilty pleas in his March

2022 plea-withdrawal motion. In that motion, Sanchez argued that his trial counsel was

ineffective by failing to advise him that pleading guilty to a rape charge would require

Sanchez to register as a sex offender. Sanchez claimed, too, that his trial counsel

pressured him into signing a plea agreement even though Sanchez at the time wanted to

take his case to trial. As we noted above, Sanchez appealed the trial court’s April 2022

denial of his motion, and our court affirmed that decision. See Sanchez, 2023-Ohio-2042,

at ¶ 35 (5th Dist.).

{¶18} Sanchez filed his second Criminal Rule 32.1 motion in August 2025, arguing

again that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel. In his own affidavit that

he submitted with that second motion, Sanchez claims that he first requested from his

trial attorney the entirety of his case file “a few months after being convicted in 2017”

because he had “never viewed it.” Some other documents that were attached as exhibits
to Sanchez’s second motion indicate that Sanchez had received by mid-July 2017 at least

some of the discovery materials that were sent to his trial counsel by the State when his

case was pending in the trial court.

{¶19} In July 2023 — approximately six years after Sanchez received the first set

of documents from his trial counsel — Sanchez’s sister filed a public-records request

seeking copies of all documents filed with the court in Sanchez’s case. His review of those

responsive documents, Sanchez says, led him to realize that his trial attorney had not

shown to and discussed with him all of the discovery-related items in the attorney’s

possession in 2016 before the plea change.

{¶20} Sanchez received the allegedly missing discovery materials from his trial

attorney in September 2024, and he claims that he saw then for the first time several

pieces of evidence that would have prompted him to reject a plea deal and take his case to

trial. He also contends that the documents were not consistent with his trial counsel’s

2016 assertions that Sanchez’s DNA tied him to the crimes and that one of the alleged

victims had seen Sanchez at the scene.

{¶21} Although Sanchez argues that he could not have raised his latest ineffective-

assistance allegations in his March 2022 motion, he offers no explanation for his decision

to wait six years — from July 2017 until August 2023 — to resume his efforts to obtain

his discovery materials, and his motion does not point to any barriers that would have

precluded him from obtaining the case-file materials from his trial counsel before he pled

guilty, let alone before he filed his first plea-withdrawal motion in March 2022. We note,

too, that his sister made her 2023 public-records request the month after our court

affirmed the trial court’s decision denying Sanchez’s first motion.
{¶22} We view Sanchez’s successive Criminal Rule 32.1 motions as the type of

“piecemeal claims” that are barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion. Sanchez

asserted ineffective assistance in his first motion, and it was not until after that motion

was unsuccessful that Sanchez sought out additional grounds to support a second

ineffective-assistance argument.

Sanchez Has Not Presented Newly Discovered Evidence

{¶23} Though Sanchez says that his second motion is based on information

unavailable to him when he filed his first motion, we are unpersuaded by his argument

that claim preclusion should not apply.

{¶24} While courts have recognized an exception to the claim-preclusion doctrine

where a petitioner in a second motion “‘presents new, competent, relevant and material

evidence’” from outside the record, that evidence “‘must meet some threshold standard

of cogency.’” Spencer, 2010-Ohio-1667, at ¶ 20 (8th Dist.) (finding that the trial court

was permitted to discount the self-serving affidavits submitted by the defendant in

support of his Crim.R. 32.1 motion), quoting State v. Kenney, 2003-Ohio-2046, ¶ 45 (8th

Dist.). And to avoid the application of claim preclusion to a second motion, a defendant

must point to evidence that was not “in existence and available for use at the time of trial.”

Spencer at ¶ 20, quoting Kenney at ¶ 45.

{¶25} All of the discovery materials that Sanchez claims he obtained in 2024 were

in existence before he entered his guilty pleas, and Sanchez’s claim that he was unaware

of some of those items in 2016 “does not transform [them] into newly discovered

evidence.” State v. Morris, 2026-Ohio-37, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.) (“Morris's claim that he was

unaware of Exhibit B, a 2014 Lakewood police report, does not transform it into newly

discovered evidence”). See also State v. Harris, 2024-Ohio-2993, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.) (“The
affidavit and the search warrant, which Harris claims that his trial attorney was unaware,

were issued in 2017. The search warrant and the affidavit were available in 2017 and

cannot be considered newly discovered evidence”).

{¶26} Further, when the trial judge asked Sanchez at his plea-change hearing if he

was satisfied with the quality of legal representation that he had received from his

attorney, Sanchez answered that he was. Sanchez also confirmed that his attorney had

visited him at the jail. If Sanchez’s trial attorney did falsely say to Sanchez that the State

had found Sanchez’s DNA at a crime scene that Sanchez now says he never visited, and if

Sanchez wanted then to review his case file, he could have said so on the record at the

plea-change hearing.

{¶27} For these reasons, we conclude that Sanchez’s second Criminal Rule 32.1

motion is barred by the claim-preclusion doctrine.

Even if Sanchez’s Motion Was Not Barred by Claim Preclusion, His Assertions
Are Contradicted by the Record, and He Has Not Shown a Manifest Injustice

{¶28} Even were we to embrace Sanchez’s view that claim preclusion does not bar

him from pursuing his second motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, he has still failed to

carry his burden of showing that a manifest injustice occurred.

{¶29} The only evidence he submitted in support of his assertion that he did not

learn until 2024 that his trial counsel had lied to him in 2016 and had withheld discovery

materials from him are Sanchez’s own self-serving affidavits and some unauthenticated

copies of what he claims are some of the discovery documents that he obtained in 2024.

These items offer no convincing support for a manifest-injustice finding. See State v.

Norris, 2019-Ohio-3768, ¶ 24 (8th Dist.) (“A self-serving affidavit by the moving party, in

and of itself, is generally insufficient to demonstrate manifest injustice”); Spencer, 2010-
Ohio-1667, at ¶ 23 (8th Dist.) (“In an effort to show the additional injustice required in

the above cases, appellant also argues that the weapon seized from him when he was

arrested did not ballistically match the murder weapon, contrary to what his attorney had

informed him. He attached an unauthenticated report to his motion, which he purports

shows that the ballistic tests did not match. Again, appellant fails to demonstrate that a

manifest injustice has occurred, even if this document were what appellant purports it to

be”).

{¶30} Though Sanchez claims in his motion that his trial attorney did not answer

Sanchez’s phone calls, did not visit Sanchez at the jail, did not discuss discovery materials

with Sanchez, lied about the State’s evidence, and forced Sanchez to enter guilty pleas,

those allegations are contradicted by the record. At his plea-change hearing, Sanchez told

the trial judge that his attorney had met with him and had visited him at the jail. And

when he was asked whether he was satisfied with the quality of legal services that he

received from his attorney, Sanchez answered “yes, ma’am.” See State v. Winters, 1998

Ohio App. LEXIS 3552, *4 (5th Dist. July 20, 1998) (“The trial court cannot grant a motion

to withdraw a plea based upon an affidavit which directly contradicts the record”).

{¶31} As for Sanchez’s argument that the trial court should have held a hearing

before denying his motion, “[t]he trial court need not hold an evidentiary hearing on the

post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea if the ‘record indicates that the movant is

not entitled to relief and the movant has failed to submit evidentiary documents sufficient

to demonstrate a manifest injustice.’” State v. Makupson, 2007-Ohio-5329, ¶ 21 (8th

Dist.), quoting State v. Russ, 2003-Ohio-1001, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.).

{¶32} As explained above, the only evidentiary support that Sanchez submitted

were affidavits from himself, his sister, and his girlfriend, plus some documents that he
now claims he never saw before entering a guilty plea. The trial court did not abuse its

discretion in deeming those documents insufficient to warrant a hearing on Sanchez’s

motion. See State v. Brown, 2006-Ohio-3266, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.) (“even if the doctrine of

res judicata did not bar all of appellant's claims, his own self-serving declarations of

coercion would not be enough to show manifest injustice . . . The voluminous record in

this case clearly shows the trial court's knowledge of appellant's repeated attempts to

make similar claims”).

{¶33} For the reasons explained above, we affirm the judgment of the Court of

Common Pleas of Stark County. Costs are to be paid by Appellant Anthony Sanchez.

By: Gormley, J.;

Baldwin, P.J. and

Montgomery, J. concur.